ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
Utilizing flip angle/TR equivalence to reduce breath hold duration in hyperpolarized
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and SNR Performance of HyperpolarizedMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Design and Implementation of a Multi-Center Trial ofJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Establishing standardized healthy reference distributions and values for multisiteMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- A thermally polarized, dissolved-phaseJournal of magnetic resonance (San Diego, Calif. : 1997) · 2025Article
- Assessment of pulmonary physiological changes caused by aging, cigarette smoking, and COPD with hyperpolarizedEuropean radiology · 2024Article
- Optimized quantitative mapping of cardiopulmonary oscillations using hyperpolarizedMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Establishing a hemoglobin adjustment forMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2023Article
- PediatricJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo reduce scan duration in hyperpolarized
methodsImages were acquired in 12 subjects (n = 3 radiation therapy, n = 1 unexplained dyspnea, n = 8 healthy) using both standard (TR = 15 ms, FA = 20°, duration = 15 s, 998 projections) and "fast" (TR = 5.4 ms, FA = 12°, duration = 11.3 s, 2100 projections) acquisition parameters. For the fast acquisition, 3 image sets were reconstructed using subsets of 1900, 1500, and 1000 projections. From the resulting ventilation, tissue ("barrier"), and red blood cell (RBC) images, image metrics and biomarkers were compared to assess agreement between methods.
resultsImages acquired using both FA/TR settings had similar qualitative appearance. There were no significant differences in SNR, image mean, or image SD between images. Moreover, the percentage of the lungs in "defect", "normal", and "high" bins for each image (ventilation, RBC, barrier) was not significantly different among the acquisition types. After registration, comparison of 3D image metrics (Dice, volume similarity, average distance) agreed well between bins. Images using 1000 projections for reconstruction had no significant differences from images using all projections.
conclusionUsing flip angle/TR equivalence, hyperpolarized
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.